Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 Next
Comments 47751 to 47800:
-
Tristan at 16:57 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Attributing something to deception rather than accident is not itself evidence of conspiratorial thinking, even when two parties are involved.
For instance, When Watts posts a contrarian climate change post by another author, are members of the climate science community engaging in conspiracist ideation by attributing the post to two cases of wilful disinformation, rather than two cases of poor scientific understanding?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 16:07 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis attempts to draw an interesting distinction between conspiracist hypotheses and consparicist ideation. Curtis seems to argue meeting any of the six criteria listed in this paper shows conspiracist ideation. However, Stephan Lewandosky and co-authors have defined conspiracist ideation as conspiratorial thinking. Does assuming nefarious intent in people you disagree with mean you're engaging in conspiratorial thinking? Of course not. Does assuming maliceful deception rather than accidental mistakes in people mean you're engaging in conspiratorial thinking? Of course not.
Conspiracist ideation is conspiratorial thinking. It requires you think there is a conspiracy. If you don't think there is a conspiracy, you aren't engaging in conspiratorial thinking. You aren't showing a conspiracist ideation.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:42 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger points out that I missed his claim that:
"In that case, I'll stress the work this post is about says its criteria are for classifying hypotheses "as potentially conspiracist." Potentially. As in, it may or may not be conspiratorial. Curtis portrays the fact something meets one (or more) of the six criteria as making it conspiratorial, but that relies on misrepresenting the paper. Meeting one or more criteria is necessary but not sufficient."
Indeed, it deserves a response, and the obvious response. He has merely shifted the subject to avoid refuation.
My original claim, which he disputes was:
"As noted by Rob Honeycutt, Lewandowski's theory is about the presence of conspiracy theory ideation, ie, the types of thought patterns typically found in conspiracy theories, rather than the presence of conspiracy theories themselves. McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU adress certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation, regardless of whether it contains an actual conspiracy theory. In this case the conspiracy theory ideation consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness."
(Emphasis added).
When he responded that, "Malice is only one part of such ideation." and that,
"I said malice is only one part of conspitorial ideation. That means you need more than just attributions of malice to exhibit such ideation."
he appeared to be talking about the same topic. But now, all of a sudden, he is talking about conspiracist hypotheses. Just to make this plain, all conspiracist hypotheses exhibit conspiracist ideation; but not all conspiracist ideation is part of a conspiracist hypothesis (just as not all suicidal ideation constitutes an actual suicide).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:43 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon... You're just not getting it.
You obviously can not comprehend what is being discussed in terms of conspiracy ideation.
McIntyre went off on a completely irrational tanget on his site. He did exactly what I've repeatedly described as "conspiracy ideation." He looked for what he believed we inconsistencies, connected his own dots, and claimed something was going on. All based only on his imagination, having asked no one involved if they could explain.
Anthony Watts did exactly the same thing. He made a post on his site and also made comments on Lucia's site claiming that SkS must be getting paid by Al Gore, even giving dollar figures, for the work. All before ever asking John Cook. And even when John answered honestly, made only the thinnest reference on his site. No mea culpa.
These are acts of conspiracy ideation. I'm sorry if you don't get it.
-
willard at 09:34 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Please note how many indefinite descriptions Chewbacca's 54 contain.
Not that Chewbacca makes no sense, mind us.
Auditors may think of spit balls, quod vide:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922148074
-
willard at 09:30 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Thank you for the kind words, Tom.
You say:
> [I]t is difficult to imagine how [Chewbacca] arrives at is bizzare, and irrelevant, misinterpretation.
Most exercises in "parsomatic" (a term borrowed from Eli Rabett, see [1]) seem to make sure what your opponent says makes no sense.
I call this the Chewbacca conjecture [2].
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 09:26 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In my comment @47, I showed Rob Honeycutt was completely wrong about what Anthony Watts did. @48 Honeycutt responded by saying if things were the exact opposite of what he said... he was still exactly right. I can't help but see some similarity to what this paper described where "contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy." I know it isn't actually the same, but there's something to be said for finding out you got everything exactly backwards and responding by saying it doesn't change your conclusion.
As for what Tom Curtis says @51, the simple truth is I don't remember seeing a topic on any site I visit regularly that had a discussion of the contents of this paper. That's why I haven't discussed it publicly. The only times such a discussion seemed relevant (prior to seeing Michael Mann's Facebook post) to me has been in personal communication. I don't think that fact merits an entire comment devoted solely to personal attacks and accusations of dishonesty.
As for what he says @52, he claims my discussion of his wording was a non-substantive response, but he ignores the fact I followed that discussion by saying, "I'll assume that was a mistake" and explaining why the interpretation he intended is wrong. In other words, I disagreed with his wording then clarified what I thought he meant. I then responded based upon that clarification.
Tom Curtis ignored that response. He portrays my clarification as the entirety of my response. Based upon that misrepresentation, he says my "response was entirely non-responsive." He completely ignored the primary point of my response then claimed the response was non-responsive.
I don't agree with the defense of the wording Tom Curtis offered @52, but we both seem to agree it is irrelevant. As such, I won't discuss it. I'll merely point out it what I said was not offered as a rebuttal, but a clarification. It is ridiculous to say my post was non-responsive by focusing on a clarification and ignoring the actual rebuttal.
Moderator Response: [JH] Given the repetitive and meandering nature of your posts, you are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering. You are hereby advised to change course, or get off of the ice. -
Tom Curtis at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
willard @40, well named.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger now presents us with the novel argument that "An element is a part of something." As an example of logic chopping evasion, that response certainly takes the cake. At best it means he has pointed out that my mentioning "six independent elements" was an oxymoron, and that I should have chosen a different word (perhaps, following Lewandowski, "criteria"). As a response to the thrust of what I said, however, his response was entirely non-responsive. (Surprise, surprise.)
He is, however, also wrong in his logic chopping. An element is always a part of a set; but that does not mean that it cannot be independent of the other elements of the set. Toraunce (my daughters Labrador), is an element of the set {Toraunce, William, Lollipop} (ie, the set of the familly pets). That in no way implies that's toraunce's survival is dependent of the two cats.
What is more, the term "independent element" is common usage, as for example in Zimmerman et al, so it is difficult to imagine how Shollenberger arrives at is bizzare, and irrelevant, misinterpretation.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:51 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger now claims to have discussed Lewandowski 2013 "with several different people" and to have "spent a fair amount of time examining it". The later may well be true. On Feb 7th he asked for and recieved a link for the paper. That request, however, is the only comment by him on the paper that turns up an a google search for "Lewandowski" and "Shollenberger", or on a search for "Recursive", "Fury", and "Shollenberger". The second search, however, turns up three examples of his first chewbacca defence on this topic - here, at The Blackboard, and of course at WUWT.
So, it appears that while Shollenberger may have discussed the paper in private among those who will not be too critical of his views, there is no evidence of his being willing to discuss it with those who will show the intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. Instead he bring up off topic points one after the other to fill the comment threads with criticizing irrelevancies so as to distract from the fact that the main post is substantive and shows the bizzarre nature of the response by so-called "skeptics" to Lewandowski 2012.
In other words, his sole tactic here is to spread Uncertainty and Doubt.
-
dana1981 at 08:13 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu @67 - two simple reasons. 1) As Composer99 @68 noted, the Escalator is simply a tool to show that you can cherrypick short periods of data to get flat trends at any point over the past 40+ years. Cherrypicking is the whole point. 2) Because the bulk of the human-caused global warming has occurred since 1970.
-
sauerj at 07:44 AM on 9 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
truthisbest (#4): ... Two suggested Links that might further help: 1) The following SkS article (LINKED HERE) does a good job explaining the physics of global warming and how changing GHG concentrations impact total outgoing radiation until when thermal equilibrium is re-established at which time total outgoing energy then returns to = total incoming energy (albeit at different intensities at the various emitted wavelengths). 2) Also, the two lecture videos (LINKED HERE) from the "German Advisory Council on Climate Change" are also very good in explaining the physics of global warming (watch both episodes #1 & #2).
-
willard at 07:42 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
It might be time to ask Chewbacca if he recognizes that this claim is untrue:
> Put simply, Steve McIntyre blamed everything in this post on Michael Mann.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/a-conspiracy-of-one/
If we remove that untrue claim, his post at Tony's rests on snickers alone.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:10 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon... If I posted a comment on WUWT asking the readers how many people believe John Cook when he said SkS was not paid for the material, how many would say they believe it? Think about it. What about you? Do you believe it?
That is the essence of what I'm talking about.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:08 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brendon... If Watts didn't know the facts before making his post, then he's engaging in conspiratorial ideation. You find out the facts before you make a post. Not after.
And, in fact, Watts has not recanted any of the errors he's put forth. Not unlike how you have continually done here.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:59 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Rob Honeycutt @41 and @42 says:
Third, Anthony was told this and has still chosen to reject the facts and create a post to the contrary.
...
This is exactly what Tony's doing. He's been told, upfront and honestly, what the facts are but is choosing to assume those facts are not the truth, but are a cover up for the "real truth."When I looked at Anthony's site for posts about the issue, I found this site. On it, Watts shows the exact opposite of what Honeycutt portrays. He says he sent an e-mail to John Cook asking how much Cook was paid. There is then an update that says Cook responded, saying he wasn't paid anything. That is the opposite of what Honeycutt says.
Watts didn't know "the facts" before he made his post, and he accepted them once he found them out. As far as I can see, Rob Honeycutt's description is completely false.
As for him saying (@43) my "true colors come out" on a different site, I haven't said anything different on any other site. The only thing I've done differently here is use a more moderate tone in respect for this site and its rules. My views are well-documented. There would be no point in me trying to hide them. I couldn't if I wanted to.
-
rockytom at 05:57 AM on 9 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
This is a really good post John. Denialism (misinformation and disinformation) must be attacked on all fronts, and as you mentioned, a textbook should touch on negative as well as the positive, especially in a science textbook about what some people consider a "controversial" subject. To the informed, climate change and global warming are not controversial. It is most likely the uninformed (like most entering college freshmen) who see both sides of the "controversy." An introductory science textbook that's intended as a survey of the science should introduce students to all aspects of the science, even the negative ones. That's why, in my experience, students gain a much better understnding of scientific concepts when they see the errors presented by the negative deniers of the facts. This is basically why we included the two chapters in our new textbook, "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis."
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:48 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis @39 again accuses me of dishonesty in his 1, but he fails to address the fact he misrepresented my remarks while making this same claim just before. That point has apparently been dropped. I can only assume he has no explanation for his misrepresentation.
He instead focuses on a different point: That I (supposedly) haven't discussed this paper. The reality is I have discussed this paper with several different people, and I have spent a fair amount of time examining it. The fact I haven't discussed it in this particular spot doesn't mean anything more than I want to focus on one issue at a time.
Curtis even makes an issue of the fact I "waited 9 days without commenting on the OP." This is a peculiar claim as until the day I posted on this page, I didn't even know it existed. I did a search of this site to find a recent post discussing an issue that would make my concerns topical. That was when I first saw this page.
Put simply, Curtis's accusations of dishonesty, made in blatant violation of this site's Comments Policy, are baseless.
For his 2, Curtis claims unnecessary attribution of malice is "one of six independent elements of such ideation." An element is a part of something. It is a component, exactly in line with me saying it is "only one part." That means his remark actually agreed with what I've said. I'll assume that was a mistake, and he meant to say each of the six elements are different types of conspiratorial ideation.
In that case, I'll stress the work this post is about says its criteria are for classifying hypotheses "as potentially conspiracist." Potentially. As in, it may or may not be conspiratorial. Curtis portrays the fact something meets one (or more) of the six criteria as making it conspiratorial, but that relies on misrepresenting the paper. Meeting one or more criteria is necessary but not sufficient.
For his 3, Curtis effectively says we've gone as far as we can on that issue. I agree. I will merely state I have posted in complete honesty, despite what Curtis may say. We may be at a stalemate on this point, but it is not because I'm being dishonest.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:47 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Albatross, I had guessed Watts was wrong the first time I read his comment. I figured Skeptical Science helped in some way, but I figured they did it for free. But being wrong doesn't make one conspiratorial. That is true, for example, when you are wrong and say:
Watts is clearly trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS.
Watts did not try to insinuate there was anything going on between "Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS." Al Gore was recently part of a business deal in which he got a large amount of money from Al Jazeera. Watts was referring to this, suggesting Gore paid SKS with money gotten from that deal. There is no reason to interpret Watts as suggesting Al Jazeera was involved. It was just a jab at Al Gore for taking money from Al Jazeera.
Just think. You based your description of Watts (on part) on such an simple misinterpretation. If you can do that, surely you should at least consider cutting him some slack.
-
John Hartz at 04:50 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Rob Honeycutt:
I do believe that you are being a tad harsh in your criticism of Watts and his followers. Afterall, they live in a parallel universe where "up" is "down" and "right" is "left", etc. A little kindness and understanding goes a long way, or so they say.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:37 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
And how fascinating how on Lucia's site your true colors come out...
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #111119)
March 7th, 2013 at 11:42 pm
John Cook continues the insanity by saying this quote from Anthony Watts is the:
Latest conspiracy theory from @wattsupwiththat – @skepticscience getting paid by Al Gore with Al Jazeera oil money http://bit.ly/XWp5vj
What about hiring people to do a legal job in an open manner is a conspiracy?
I think this link should take you to the “tweet.”
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:34 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In addition, how conspiracy ideation works is, when you get an answer that is contrary to your concocted story line, that is further evidence of the "conspiracy." This is exactly what Tony's doing. He's been told, upfront and honestly, what the facts are but is choosing to assume those facts are not the truth, but are a cover up for the "real truth." And his "real truth" is the story that he's concocted.
It's a form of circular reasoning.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:23 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon @ 37.... OMG. You have got to be joking. That has to be one of the worst conspiratorial twitter posts to ever come out of Watts and you're asking what's the conspiracy?
First of all, no one hired SkS to do any work. Second, no one paid SkS any money. Third, Anthony was told this and has still chosen to reject the facts and create a post to the contrary.
Again, this is exactly what "conspiracy ideation" is. It's following what one perceives to be inconsistencies and then connecting those dots to create a story line, regardless of any actual facts.
-
Composer99 at 03:29 AM on 9 March 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Saw a story about this paper over at ScienceBlogs and I suspect it's on topic for this post.
From the abstract:
[1] Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth's climate. Contributions to this increase both from moderate volcanic eruptions and from enhanced coal burning in Asia have been suggested. Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources. Here we use a global climate model coupled to an aerosol microphysical model to partition the contribution of each. We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
-
desertphile at 02:48 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I have been looking on the Internet for evidence that "The Australian" has explained their oddly deceptive behavior, or has in any way tried to justify their behaior, or if they have apologized. Either my Internet search skills are not up to the task, or "The Australian" has not bothered to do any of these things.
-
desertphile at 02:45 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
"Was Pachauri misrepresented by The Australian?"
Surely the evidence shows that he was--- the interviews in question are available on the Internet. Note that even if the interviews were not available, the belief that Dr. Pachauri would make the claim is an irrational belief. It is like asserting that Dr. Pachauri said Earth is hollow.
-
John Hartz at 01:43 AM on 9 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Doug:
I just flipped a switch and Curry's profile now appears in the gallery of Climate Misinformers. If you have any personal interest in helping us keep this database current, please let John Cook know.
-
willard at 01:41 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis,
Let's not forget that the Auditor has associated another name than "Wingman Naomi":
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick
Our emphasis. Now, why would the Auditor mention Pierrehumbert if Mann alone was his sole target?
The notion of virtual identity deserves due diligence.
***
For memory’s sake, here was the Auditor’s line:
All in all, it’s a French farce with the Chevalier often acting more like Inspector Clouseau than Hercule Poirot.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/7731143731
***
Finally, please note that your interlocutor, which I call Chewbacca because of his fondness for the Chewbaccattack (think South Park), mentioned his pet theory over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/03/open-thread-weekend-10/#comment-299910
One can find an exchange I had with Chewbacca on the same page.
An exchange that ended with crickets.
Due diligence,
w
-
KR at 00:47 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu - In reverse order: With regards to variations up and down over the last 160 years, see CO2 is not the only driver of climate; also the IPCC AR4 section 9 on attributions:
AR4, Fig. 9-5, simulations run with/without anthropogenic contributions to forcings.
Up until the last 50 years or so it might be plausibly argued that what we were seeing was simply natural forcing variations. That's no longer the case - the physics shows that recent changes are dominated by anthropogenic influences.
As to why start at 1970? Isn't that a sufficent extent of time to show (a) a real trend, and (b) the 'skeptic' cherry-pick of short-term negative trends due entirely to noise? Besides - I don't recall any of the 'skeptic' crowd claiming negative trends in the 1930-1940 time frame using the same tactics, do you?
-
Composer99 at 00:29 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu:
I believe there is statistical & physics-based reasoning behind it, but I am not up to speed on that aspect so I will not comment on it (except for one point).
I can note that the Escalator graph isn't really meant to illustrate what is going on with global warming. It's a debunking tool, meant to show how easy it is to construct "pauses" or "cooling periods" in the data which are not statistically or physically significant.
If one were to extend the graph to, say, 1850, it would rather belabour the point. Plus, the period 1940-1970 (approximately) had (surface temperature) cooling that was both statistically and physically significant, so it would be inappropriate to use the Escalator graph to suggest that period was a cherry-pick.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon Shollenberger @34:
1) Shollenberger now claims,
"The reality is I'd happily discuss the paper ..." .
As it happens, however, he waited 9 days without commenting on the OP, but found he had to comment once he found a suitable distraction. Further, he has now made 7 posts (excluding the posts dealing solely with administrative matters) without getting around to discussing the OP. Indeed, his most recent post introduces, apropos of nothing, and entirely new topic without getting around to the original post.
In this case, actions clearly speak louder than words. He does not want to discuss the original post. He is not simly clarrifying easier points before embarking on the topic of the OP, because his simple issues are not logically required for discussion of the OP. He is simply throwing in red herrings to distract from the OP. In short, he is spreading FUD.
And Shollenberger, you may find that description of your acts offensive. I find, however, of necessity, the act itself must always be more offensive than the description. If you dislike it when your actions are described truly, the remedy is in your power - stop spreading FUD.
2) Shollenberger is distressed that I have mistaken him as saying something true. I apologize. I certainly did not want to misrepresent him, and am happy to acknowledge that he said something false when he wrote:
"Malice is only one part of such ideation"
I am not sure what he intends to claim, except that, apparently, malice is not an independent attribute of conspiratorial ideation. On the contrary, however, it is one of six independent elements of such ideation identified in the Lewandowski 2013:
"We derived six criteria from the existing literature to permit classi cation of hypotheses pertaining to LOG12 as potentially conspiracist (see Table 3). Our criteria were exclusively psychological and hence did not hinge on the validity of the various hypotheses. ...
First, the presumed intentions behind any conspiracy are invariably nefarious ...
A corollary of the fi rst criterion is the pervasive self-perception and self- presentation among conspiracy theorists as the victims of organized persecution. ...
Third, during its questioning of an official account, conspiracist ideation is characterized by an almost nihilistic degree of skepticism" (Keeley, 1999, p. 125); and the conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not fi t into the conspiracy theory. ...
Fourth, to the conspiracy theorist, nothing happens by accident (e.g., Barkun, 2003). ...
Fifth, the underlying lack of trust and exaggerated suspicion contribute to a cognitive pattern whereby speci c hypotheses may be abandoned when they become unsustainable, but those corrections do not impinge on the overall abstraction that `something must be wrong' and the `official' account must be based on deception (Wood et al., 2012). ...
Finally, contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy. This ideation relies on the notion that, the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (Bale, 2007; Keeley, 1999; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). ..."
It should be noted that McIntyre's theory exhibits not just the attribution of malice, but also the refusal to allow for accidental developments. In this case, Mann's continued use of data from 2006 cannot be attributed to laziness (for example), but must be attributed to malice in McIntyre's account.
3) I do not see any need to add to my prior points about "Wingman Naomi". Shollenberger's interpretation is patently contrived, and only pursued (I suspect) to evade the embarassment of his claiming that only Mann was discussed when in fact McIntyre discussed two scientists in terms that strongly suggested collusion between them.
-
truthisbest at 23:01 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
KR - thank you for your responses @ #5 & #9.
-
snafu at 22:35 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Speaking of cherry picking, why does your Escalator graph start at 1970?
HADCRUT4 from 1850 to present; 0.046°C/decade with 2 distict warming and 2 (possibly 3) distinct cooling trends....each around 35-40 years. Please explain?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:51 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Here are some of Anthony's comments and a comment from one use:
"REPLY: It is a highlighter marker, used to call attention to the area, like I routinely do with text. If I wanted to make a plot trend line, I would have used a plot trend line. – Anthony"
"REPLY: and again, it isn’t statistically significant in the scheme of things, much like that 0.7C in the atmosphere isn’t statistically significant against daily diurnal variation or seasons. – Anthony" He sure doesn't seem to have his head around what Statistical Significance actually means does he?
"REPLY: and again as answered previously and made clear in the story, it isn’t a trend line (though you want it to be) it is simply a yellow highlight to draw attention to the section of interest, just like I use the same highlight tool on sections of text or tables I post. – Anthony"
But...
"Mark Buehner says:
“Anthony, what’s your evidence the warming has paused? The data you present show the warming continuing.”
It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line)."
Sure looks like he misled at least on person!
So, Anthony's use of the 'highlighter' was, in a communications sense, very, very ... sloppy. If your readers can misinterpret what you have written, you didn't do a very good job communicating with them.
An open question that each reader can decide for themselves. Is such sloppiness unintentional, in which case we simply say that that person shouldn't be writing anything because they aren't good enough at it?
Or is it intentional, carefully crafted sloppiness that has a desired effect and can then be immediately denied if you are called out on it?
Whats the term used in politics - plausible deniability?
-
Albatross at 17:29 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon @37,
The following assertion is simply false:
"Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. "
SkS's support was acknowledged; SkS were not hired to do anything, period. It is really that simple. Watts is embarking on a futile fishing expedition and smear campaign.
Watts is clearly trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. Goodness' knows what compelled Watts to dream up that ridiculous fantasy. You see Watts is engaging in conspiracy ideation because his question reveals that he thinks/believes that something is going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. One has to be incredibly naive (or biased) to think that Watts is not engaging in conspiracy ideation.
Watts and his ilk seem unaware of the irony here given that it was in fact Watts who approached an AGW denier group (the Heartland Institute) for $88K to develop a web site. I don't think that was public knowledge until the Gleick affair, but I could be wrong about that.
If Watts wants to continue to make a fool of himself then that is his decision. Likewise, people are free to make fools of themselves by trying to defend his inane and paranoid behaviour.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 15:41 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In a related note, John Cook just posted this on Twitter:
Latest conspiracy theory from
@wattsupwiththat -@skepticscience getting paid by Al Gore with Al Jazeera oil money http://bit.ly/XWp5vjWhat is the supposed conspiracy here? Anthony Watts said "the SkS kidz are behind" a website, pondering how much Skeptical Science got paid for making the site. Right or wrong, nothing about that idea is a conspiracy. There is nothing untoward about hiring people to make a website for you. Besides, the point of a conspiracy is to be secretive. The entire basis for what Watts said was that the site was developed "through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science."
Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. What about that idea involves a conspiracy?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:41 PM on 8 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Thanks, John. I found what I wanted at www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm. I was just curious why that page was not referenced along with the other usual suspects.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 15:32 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
That's a good one, jyyh. :)
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:35 PM on 8 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin @79
From the abstract for the paper: "On 103- to 106-year timescales, global sea level is determined largely by the volume of ice stored on land, ....Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My"
They are looking at a much longer time scale that the ice age cycles. Milankovitch orbital changes are concerned with what happens within a single glacial cycle over time scales of 50,000 to 100,000 years. They are looking at a 40 million year span. At that timescale Milankovitch cycles just cancel each other out.
-
jyyh at 13:17 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Genetics of a long-living individual specimens of various species, such as bristlecone pine.
-
Leto at 12:42 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin wrote: "Cherrypicking? Generally speaking, cherrypicking is used to show info in the best possible light, it also implies intentional misleading. To present a claim that a trend has stopped, or even alterred, you must use the data at the end of the series. Since they are making the claim that warming has stopped since X, how else should the data be presented other then showing a trend from X to the present?"
Moving the cherrypick into the claim does not stop it from being a cherrypick.
The main question is, has the value of X, in this case 1997, emerged from any theory? Or has it been chosen post hoc because starting from that point yields a preferred result? Is it actually noise-driven rather than theory-driven?
If I made a bet that I could hit a 1cm target on a tree with a high-powered rifle from 1km away, would you be at all bothered if I first fired into a forest and then drew the target - after I took the shot?
-
Roger D at 10:52 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Watts post is titled "Fact check for Andrew Glickson - Ocean heat has paused too".
The title idicates that facts will be presented. Some data was shown, but the only real fact turns out to be that when Watts looks at part of the available data, (while never alluding to the fact that it is only part) it looks to him like ocean heat has paused. What use is that to understanding the issue? None.
-
Smith at 10:04 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Tom Curtis@60 - Thank you for your response.
For that he is rightly criticized.
Fair enough. The label "Denial Fake Trend" just seems like odd language IMO.
-
Smith at 09:59 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Dana1981@34 - Thank you for your response.
I hope you're not holding me to a higher standard than you're holding Wattsy.
I guess the short answer is yes I am. Wouldn't you prefer it that way?
-
scaddenp at 09:34 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
'I am still under the impression that the above is not true." Correct. Kevin is wrong. He is effectively posulating that coductive heat transfer from atmosphere to warm the surface or ocean. This would be a violation of 2nd law. Instead, the GHG gases in the atmosphere increase the amount of LW radiation reaching the surface. (This is measurable). Kevin, I would strongly recommend looking at Science of Doom's excellent basics on this. Not getting this right is leading you into confusion.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:11 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
smith @19 and @29, there are several acceptable ways to highlight a data of special interest in a graph. Two common methods are to draw an ellipse around the data of particular interest, or to highlight a large rectangular region including all the data of special interest. A third way is to highlight the values on the x-axis that are of interest. The common feature of all these methods are that they cannot be mistaken for a trend line. Equally important, nor do they create an optical illusion suggesting that the trend in the data is flatter than it actually is.
Instead of these common conventions, Watts chose a method to "highlight" the data of interest which is easilly mistaken for a trend line, and which is likely to suggest the trend is flatter than it actually is.
More importantly, if you intend to show that there has been a pause in the trend, the minimum method is to show calculate the trend line for the data exhibiting the trend, and to calculate the trend and confidence interval of the trend for the period supposedly exhibiting a pause, shoing that the confidence interval of the trend does not include the long term trend. Further, you should show the supposed pause is not over a period so short that its trend does not fall withing the 3 sigma distribution range of trends of that period over the course of the long term trend.
Instead of that, Watts chose to ignore that necessary legwork; and to display a line that was both easilly mistaken for a trend and likely to distort visual estimates of the trend. For that he is rightly criticized.
-
KR at 07:26 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin - In addition, those empirically observed changes in TOA radiation would have to reverse in order to remove a greenhouse gas induced energy imbalance; and they have not.
What has happened over this cherry-picked interval is that 1998 was a 3-sigma extreme El Nino, followed by a number of La Ninas. If you correctly account for these short term variations (Rahmstorf et al 2012, also a simpler analysis by John Nielsen-Gammon), it is clear that the warming trend continues just as expected from the physics.
On the other hand, if you select extreme points in the noise such as 1997/1998 and claim trend changes, you are cherry-picking from statistically insignificant data. Which means that you are wrong to make those assertions.
-
KR at 07:15 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
helenavargas - There is work available on Earthshine under Goode et al 2001, Rodiguez et al 2005 (not a reviewed paper), you can check their methods and sources (ISCCP datasets, solar observatory readings, etc). I believe that uncertainties with this technique are thought to be fairly high, although I can't locate those discussions right now.
RE: IR to space, the Earth is a 'graybody' with a highly notched spectra, emissivity of ~0.612, although the spectra is compared to an integrated blackbody spectra for a blackbody equivalent temperature. The climate is anything but adiabatic - it is not thermally isolated, it is a system with a constant inflow and constant outflow of energy, somewhere near dynamic equilibrium. The current divergence from equilibrium, leading to global warming, is indicative of a long-term 0.8 W/m^2 imbalance (from ocean heat content changes). But equilibrium will not be reached until (a) forcing changes halt, and (b) enough time has passed for the thermal inertia of the Earth to catch up.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:03 AM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
hellenavargas... Not sure why it didn't work for you. Will put it by our resident expert.
-
Composer99 at 06:45 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin:
That - showing that the top-of-atmosphere radiative budget is in balance - is exactly what it would take to show that global warming has stalled.
The radiative energy imbalance at top-of-atmosphere is a phenomenon empirically measured by satellite. It's not "theory" that can be overruled by "data". Furthermore, it's the reason surface temperatures are increasing in the first place.
Several people have now very patiently explained the problems with your reasoning. I note that your response is to indirectly complain of "political correctness" and to re-assert your claim without any apparent attempt to correct your misconceptions of statistics or physics.
Moderator Response: [DB] All parties...and most especially Kevin, please take the discussion of "16 years" to that most-appropriately-named thread. If it is deemed to have already been covered there, it will be adjudged as sloganeering and be moderated accordingly. Thanks in advance for everyone's compliance and understanding in this matter.
Prev 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 Next
